back to article Splashdown! Orion lands safely in the Pacific Ocean

The Orion spaceship has landed safely in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of California, just a mile and a half off-target, after its maiden voyage in space. NASA’s new manned mission capsule operated almost entirely by the book today, passing each of its test flight milestones more or less on time, and dropping back to Earth …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SPLASHDOWN! Orion lands safely in the Pacific Ocean

    So one presumes it will be doing the same thing in the Sea of Tranquility?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: SPLASHDOWN! Orion lands safely in the Pacific Ocean

      "So one presumes it will be doing the same thing in the Sea of Tranquility?"

      +1 funny :D

  2. Anomalous Cowturd
    Pint

    I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

    Absolutely amazing.

    Thank you NASA, and well done!

    Drinks all round?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

      Also, thank you taxpayer of the future.

      1. Dave 32
        FAIL

        Re: I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

        I'd rather them blow tax money on Orion, where it'll mostly flow back into our economy and will advance science and technology, than give it away to various foreign countries and wasted military campaigns!

        1. lambda_beta
          Linux

          Re: I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

          Unfortunately, NASA probably had to come up some scenario and sold it to the politicians about how this will help us win the cold war ... opps wrong century ... to help us defeat the all bad guys around the world. If it's not in the name of national insecurity, then it won't get funded.

          But I agree, better to spend it on this than on a drone that looks like a butterfly and carries a tactical nuclear weapon.

        2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

          I'd rather them blow tax money on Orion

          I hate to tell you but no-one is even asking you about whether you like to see this or that done with the taxdollars that your kids will have to pay back.

          Yeah, "Orion" is nice (for some values of nice), but so would be Petunias on every balcon of Washington, D.C.

          Full disclosure: I would vote for it (or at least something in the general direction of it), if I could and the money was on the table.

        3. imanidiot Silver badge

          Re: I was watching the re-entry from inside the capsule!

          It's too bad that NASA probably has had to axe a lot of promising research and development in order to fund this stuff. Given the current speed of development, I doubt the SLS is going to be anywhere near competitive in price by the time it has been developed. Orion is going to be a pricey proposition as well.

          Nasa needs a larger budget and for politicians to stop fucking up its agenda every 4 years.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

    Gosh father, that was a wizard tale. Will you tell me another?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: 'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

      How about the one about anonymous coward and the cattle prod?

      1. Bleu

        Re: 'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

        I am very curious about the Roscosmos offer to launch an Apollo 8 style circumlunar tour on Soyuz.

        Not heard of lately but it was real.

        There are many obscenely wealthy people who had the ability to pay, a few paid many millions of US dollars to be on the ISS, why did none of the obscenely rich take up the circumlunar offering from Roskosmos? AFAIK, is no longer on offer, why is that?

        It is interesting on many levels.

        1. Vulch

          Re: 'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

          http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/circumlunar-mission/

          "If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it"

    2. Mindbreaker

      Re: 'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

      Math needs a little work. 2014-1969=45 years.

      1. Rabbit80

        Re: 'over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon. '.....The End.

        "Math needs a little work. 2014-1969=45 years."

        Reading skills need a little work..

        "And if that goes well, the space agency is aiming to get people going on a mission to Mars in 2021, over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon."

        2021-1969=52 years.

  4. CCCP

    Sir, I salute your optimism and general good-natured attitude. Have an upvote.

    The girls and boys at NASA and ESA keep the human spirit going. And they give me something to talk to my children about which is not IS/EBOLA/Russia...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      There is nothing wrong with Russia.

      1. Tom 35

        nothing wrong with Russia

        Other then being worse at geography then a US beauty pageant contestant.

      2. Lars Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        "There is nothing wrong with Russia.", I like to agree, but there is a guy who has driven himself into a corner, and I hope the Russians will understand how to deal with it before soon. There might be even stronger stupidity available. It would be better if internal stupidity could be dealt with internally before it becomes global.

        Hovewer there is also this rather funny moon conspiracy theory. Do you really think the Russians would have kept mum if the USA had failed. Damn it.

        Something for the weekend.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIviufQ4APo

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Holmes

          > I hope the Russians will understand how to deal with it before soon

          He is also very popular. And a better politician than the barely acceptable self-styled neurotic world saviours we happen to have on offer. Could be these things are related.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Facepalm

            "He is also very popular", so was Hitler, among the royal family too. Remember Henry Ford. At the Olympics in Berlin the French gave him the Heil Hitler, some countries did not. Please, no matter how I disliked Boy Bush he did accept his eight years, eight too many. Putin is now informing the Russians he will stay on (as the nice guy he is) for his fourth stint, only not for life as he has put it now. Hitler was elected in a democratic way. Shit happens and Woodhouse was joking about it. Smile Russians smile as long as you can, or the hell.

  5. The last doughnut

    Please don't feed the troll

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      No trolls were fed in this orbital extravaganza.

  6. MarkTheMorose
    Headmaster

    Two 'thens' do not a 'than' make.

  7. Bleu

    Precisely how

    is a small capsule like that to go to Mars and back? The main point seems to be continuing handouts to contractors like Lockheed-Martin.

    Not that they are short of taxpayer dollars.

    The implication in their press is that they paid for it themselves (370 million US dollars, ridiculous, and that seems to be the cost of this one flight!).

    How much were they receiving in the development phase?

    Anyone with precise knowledge, please share it.

    I do not believe it, US citizens paid for that flight and for the overpriced project, from a corporation that is obese from war contracts.

    Do not believe that they do anything for the greater good, although I know their engineers try for excellence.

    Congratulations to them for the flight.

    1. John D. Blair

      Re: Precisely how

      For a long mission (e.g., mars) the capsule is mated with a habitation module.

      See here for some concept studies:

      http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/dsh-module-concepts-outlined-beo-exploration/

      1. Bleu

        Re: Precisely how

        Well, obviously. Thanks for the link, I will look at it. My point is that this craft is being marketed as the rocket to Mars, and that is bullshit.

        Again, thanks for the link.

        1. Anonymous John

          Re: Well, obviously. Thanks for the link,

          There's a window in 2021 for a free return trip to Mars and back. And with a bonus Venus flyby. Add a Bigelow inflatable and there are no showstoppers.

          If NASA doesn't try it, Musk surely will.

      2. Bleu

        Re: Precisely how

        Alright, I read it in detail. Some interesting ideas, seems very reliant on tech. copied from the USSR and Russia via the ISS.

        Today's most interesting aerospace news is that Russia is going to pull the plug on ISS participation in 2020, and will use the modules that are currently in production for it as the basis for a new station in a higher orbit.

        I only checked the Reg. tonight because I thought they might have a story about it.

        I am sure that the fliers all get along most of the time, but with the economic war on the ground, it's no wonder that they want to put a limit on US exploitation of their space tech.

        What a shame.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    " high altitude point of 3,604 miles, ..."

    "...a pass through the lower Van Allen belt, atmospheric re-entry at 20,000 miles an hour and 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit"

    Uhmm. Didn't El Reg pledge some time ago to using metric units (at least in addition to Imperial and Reg-al ones)? Mainlanders would appreciate.

    1. Mindbreaker

      Re: " high altitude point of 3,604 miles, ..."

      Fahrenheit degrees sound better.

      1. Anonymous John

        Re: " high altitude point of 3,604 miles, ..."

        And, conveniently, gives a nice round number.

  9. Uffish
    Headmaster

    @ Mainlanders

    Well let's see:-

    Miles to kilometers is 8/5, so 3604 divided by 5 is about 700 plus a bit, multiplied by 8 is 5600 plus a bit, say 5700 km.

    0°C to 100°C is the same as 32°F to 212°F so a lot of Farenheits is about 100/180 as many Centigrades, so 5/9 times as many Centigrades, so 4000 °F is about (5 x 4000) / 9 = 2222 °C ish.

    Oh look I've got a caloculator, 5800 km and 2204°C.

    1. Scroticus Canis
      Happy

      Re: @ Mainlanders @Uffish - Oops

      Say 5,800 ish km and 2,204 ish Celsius being more like it.

      Did you, by chance, have a hand the orbital and re-entry calcs which resulted in landing "just a mile and a half off target"? Now multiply that by the trajectory distance to Mars and "Oh hello deep space. Where did that little red planet go?"

      Now all sing along "Ground control to Major Tom......."

      1. defiler

        Re: @ Mainlanders @Uffish - Oops

        I was only joking about the mile and a half. When it comes to travelling to Mars you start from orbit. You can calculate your trajectory very accurately when you don't have air in the way.

        Once you're moving, you can also verify just how close you are going to be and tweak your trajectory en route. Is not like firing a gun at a target millions of miles away.

      2. Bleu

        Re: @ Mainlanders @Uffish - Oops

        Still not a bad song, hey!

        As for the units, I would say 'much hotter than a kettle that's come to the boil, and from a height of about 60,000 soccer pitches'.

        It is still just an over-priced tax extravaganza for now. No big impressive show. Nobody aboard, they likely can't even do that if they want at this stage.

  10. defiler

    A mile and a half

    Don't get me wrong, a mile and a half out is pretty good. But Buran landed within 5 feet of its target on its one and only flight.

    Also, keen to see how they plan to put together a Mars lander. That thing has to touch down with a hell of a lot of delta-v in the tanks.

    Anyway. Well done to all. A safe flight is a successful flight.

    1. Florida1920
      Facepalm

      Re: A mile and a half

      But Buran landed within 5 feet of its target on its one and only flight.

      Apples and bananas. Buran was flown onto a runway; Orion came down on parachutes. A little harder to calculate wind vectors and make adjustments. And let's not talk about copping hangar designs from the Russians, shall we?

    2. Mindbreaker

      Re: A mile and a half

      This was going 20,000 miles an hour and stopped by a heat shields and parachutes. That other thing was only getting a little altitude...absolutely nothing like a real spacecraft. Glorified balloon ride for rich tourists. Now only brave rich tourists.

  11. Florida1920
    Pint

    A nice change

    Over here in the States we've been confronted by ugly scenes on the ground lately. It's nice to have a reason to look to the sky for a while. Well done NASA!

  12. Kharkov
    Facepalm

    Er, El Reg?

    NASA sending people to Mars in the 2020's? Check your facts, please. NASA has ZERO plans to send people to Mars in the 2020's nor have they even begun work on the habitat module they'll need.

    Seriously, 4 people in an Orion capsule for six months? Eww...

    Kudo's to NASA for getting the mission to work but it doesn't change the fact that Orion is a horribly expensive capsule for a horribly expensive rocket, SLS and together, they're so very very (I'd even say horribly) expensive that NASA will never be able to afford to do anything with them.

    Which makes all of this a bit pointless really...

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      "...Orion is a horribly expensive capsule..."

      I got an idea. They should make a reusable space ship, one that glides back to Earth. It could be turned around in about a month and reused. 'Cause that'll be cheaper and safer. I bet that the risk of failure might be about 1-in-10,000. And there's no way that each launch would end up costing $1.2B. With a fleet of four or five, they could be launched once a week.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: "...Orion is a horribly expensive capsule..."

        " 'Cause that'll be cheaper and safer. I bet that the risk of failure might be about 1-in-10,000. And there's no way that each launch would end up costing $1.2B. "

        You forgot the rest.

        "And set a fixed cap of 1 Beeeelion dollars a year* on the budget (with no rolling over any underspend) and no allowance for inflation."

        Thank you Caspar Weinberger of the (Nixon era) OMB.

        *Enough to design a single new vehicle and a single new engine, which killed all the original 2 stage proposals. The winning design (1 vehicle + mother-of-all-RATO packs + humongous drop tank was a British aerospace engineer).

  13. Mindbreaker

    Mars

    What really sucks is if we do go to Mars, 80% will not believe it. They will say Photoshop! Photoshop! And "What did the US really do with the money? The only way they will buy it, is if some of their trusted comedians come along like Jay Leno, Seinfeld, or Chris Rock.

  14. Jimbo in Thailand

    Sorry, I can't get excited about NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

    I'm an old fart who clearly remembers the birth of the space race way back in 1957. The single event that changed our world forever occurred when Russia successfully launched Sputnik 1, the world's very first satellite into orbit. America was completely caught off guard and thus the space race was born. The name Sputnik immediately went viral overnight. Soon, unmanned, then manned, orbital missions followed, again led by Russia. The space race was moving forward at breakneck speeds. JFK's throwing down the gauntlet speech in 1962 proclaiming that America would put a man on the moon in that decade, and did, was a fantastic period of amazing technological achievements by brilliant scientists and engineers and designers using archaic 'slip sticks' (slide rules) and drafting tables. Not only were there no personal computers in those days, there were no electronic handheld calculators. In spite of these challenges NASA did indeed put a man on the moon by 1969. OK, back to the future...

    FFS, now I almost feel like Sherman, and we've slipped into Mr. Peabody's WABAC time machine and crash landed back in the early 1960s again. So in this, the 21st century, with ever more powerful super computers and advanced technology we're back to using 1960ish space capsules perched on top of incredibly expensive disposable rockets AND having to fish the soggy space capsules out of the salty brine again. WTF?! It's almost 2015 and we're suddenly back to square 1 again. I just can't believe how absurd this whole mess is.

    I always felt like NASA lost the plot decades ago when it promptly abandoned human space exploration way back in 1972 after the (mostly) successful Apollo moon missions and instead concentrated on Earth-orbiting missions resulting in the long running Space Shuttle program. Sure much was learned, but at the cost of not advancing human space exploration.

    So now we have the ridiculous Orion program. What an effing joke! We have had the technology to go to Mars decades ago - post Apollo. This can only mean that NASA seems to be employing the same quality of brainless twits, aka, 'scientists', that have infested the medical research 'industry'... you know... the ones who haven't found a cure for anything in the last 50 years. But...hey... they have mastered the art of treating, not curing illnesses, so you and I pay and pay and pay and... OOPS, that's a rant for another day.

    OK, here are some interesting tidbits about Orion:

    1. From Wikipedia: "Astronauts were deliberately left off the flight to test the heat shield, parachutes, jettisoning components, and on-board computers before committing a crew. As a result, instead of standard seats, cockpit displays, and life-support equipment, the craft was filled with sentimental toys and memorabilia..." OMG, how can anyone respond to this line of thinking? So they didn't think it was important to test the life-support equipment in actual flight conditions. This is effing beyond insane... unless they're not really planning on launching any manned missions!

    2. From Wikipedia: "Astronauts may fly on the Orion by 2021." OUCH, so there won't be a manned mission until 2021 at the earliest?! The destination hasn't even been decided yet. [rolls eyes]

    3. Here's the biggy... From qz.com:

    "The US government has a spacecraft again—but don’t believe the Mars hype"

    "The problem is that Orion is neither fish nor fowl: It was originally conceived as part of a program to replace the Space Shuttle as a transportation to low-earth orbit, but that program was cancelled for cost-overruns and replaced with commercial contracts. Orion was revamped as a vehicle for exploration beyond low-earth orbit, but it actually isn’t big enough to allow people to make the three-year trip to Mars—that will require an additional craft, the as-yet-undesigned habitation module. Then there’s the issue of building a lander to get everything down to the surface of the red planet."

    "This spacecraft has cost $60 billion to develop so far and likely won’t fly again until 2018."

    "And even if Orion is the spacecraft that will take people to Mars, that won’t happen for 20 years. Why then use technology that is decades old, and rockets that are even older?"

    "That’s why [former NASA deputy administrator Lori] Garver have been critical of this project, which she says is more about placating contractors and members of Congress than accomplishing scientific goals."

    OK, the bottom line for all you younger guys and gals out there who think this Orion program is so wonderful, we older folks, who were around to witness the absolutely extraordinary space programs of the 1960s-1970s, just shake our heads as we know it for what it really is... a gazillion dollar pork barrel project, courtesy of American taxpayers.

    [quadruple facepalm]

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Sorry, I can't get excited about NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

      "1. ..."

      Rebuttal: Apollo 4, 5, and 6. Three unmanned flights that included the CM.

      It's safe to assume that they've mapped out a complete test program. Back to your Margaritas now.

      1. Jimbo in Thailand

        Re: Sorry, I can't get excited about NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

        "Rebuttal: Apollo 4, 5, and 6. Three unmanned flights that included the CM."

        LOL...You're completely missing the point JP. NASA has already been there - done that - and has the teeshirt to prove it. Waaay back in the 1960s NASA was just spreading its wings and each new mission was unique and previously never done before.That's certainly not the case here in the 21st century. Yes, Orion space program is indeed regressive and is simply a sham. It was born from previous ultra-wasteful pork barrel projects that were cancelled. It just has a new name, that's all.

        1. Brian Souder 1

          Re: NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

          I was thinking something similar yesterday while watching it. I want to be excited about the new program, and it is great we are back in space, but I kept thinking Congrats NASA - welcome to the 1960's. They were even saying many of the systems were from Apollo. While proven systems are good, I don't feel like we have made the next evolution in travel like in the introduction of the shuttle program. The news had referred to the capsule sending them up to another ship in orbit though. Which could be more interesting I suppose. Then you could think of these as shuttle buses. Based on how the space station assembly took years to build, they should be building the new space assembly platform about now in time to be starting to assemble another ship by the 2020's though. Then those programs go through what the ISS went though in congress.

    2. ilmari

      Re: Sorry, I can't get excited about NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

      In terms of actual rocket science, they're keeping the actual good bits of the space shuttle, the SRBs and the space shuttle main engines.

      As they don't need to fly any single-orbit missions anymore, they don't need huge wings anymore. The buge wjngs of the shuttle were needed so that on a single orbit polar mission, the shuttle could use its wings to compensate for the earth rotating underneath it, so it could return in a single orbit to its launch site. The air force wanted that, but no missions were actually flown.

      Without wings, they can place the orbiter ontop of the rocket, and not have piece of foam and ice smash into it on take off.

      The first SRBs to fly will actually be reused from the shuttle, and have flown before. They don't plan to reuse them anymore. If it doesn't pay off, don't do it.

      The space shuttle main engines are phenomenal still today, their fuel efficiency is 1.7 times better than that of Saturn V.

      Of course, politicians will probably cancel the SLS, which is the most useful bit of all the associated projects...

    3. Bleu

      Re: Sorry, I can't get excited about NASA's 'new' 1960's Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Space Program v2.0

      From reading, I always had the impression that NASA was ordered to stop the extra-terrestrial flights with crews at Apollo 17 ... a looong time ago.

      Shuttle was an interesting failure.

      US govt should refit the X-37b for piloted flights with two or three aboard, instead of whatever war-games they have it playing now. That would make for a very affordable and re-usable lift to orbit.

  15. Paul J Turner

    I wonder

    What use is a re-entry heatshield in the thin atmosphere of mars, let alone the wisp around the moon.

    It should make a nice crater so we can find the landing site though.

    Similarly, parachutes on Mars are so useless we use rockets to land, Good luck with them on a lunar landing.

    So, how do these technologies help us get to either objective?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like